Analysis of Judgment No. 34125 of 2023: Jurisdiction in Proceedings Concerning Magistrates

Judgment No. 34125 of July 6, 2023, issued by the Court of Cassation, represents an important clarification regarding jurisdiction in criminal proceedings involving magistrates. Specifically, the Court held that, in cases of dismissal of the proceedings concerning a magistrate, jurisdiction for other originally connected offenses must be determined according to ordinary rules and not according to Article 11, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Context of the Judgment

The central issue addressed by the Court concerns jurisdictional competence in proceedings involving magistrates. The relevant provision, Article 11, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, sets forth specific rules for jurisdiction in cases of connected offenses. However, the Court excluded the applicability of this provision when it comes to the dismissal of the magistrate's case, establishing that jurisdiction for the remaining offenses must follow general rules, as provided by Article 22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Proceedings concerning magistrates - Dismissal of the proceedings related to the magistrate - Jurisdiction for other originally connected offenses - Article 11, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Applicability - Exclusion - Case law. For the purpose of determining jurisdiction in proceedings concerning magistrates, in the event of dismissal of the proceedings related to the magistrate, jurisdiction for other offenses, originally connected, must be established according to ordinary rules and not by applying the provision of Article 11, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as no "perpetuatio iurisdictionis" applies. (Case in which the Court held that the order of the judge for preliminary investigations, who, having ordered the dismissal for the offense committed against the magistrate, had declined jurisdiction regarding the other offenses pursuant to Article 22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, without raising a conflict with the previous declinatory ruling made pursuant to Article 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was not functionally abnormal, as it was an act that did not lead to undue regressions or procedural stagnation).

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has several practical implications, including:

• Strengthening of ordinary jurisdiction rules in cases of dismissal of a magistrate's proceedings.
• Clarification on the concept of "perpetuatio iurisdictionis," which does not apply in this context.
• Potential impact on future criminal proceedings involving magistrates, favoring a more ordinary case management.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Judgment No. 34125 of 2023 by the Court of Cassation offers an important interpretation of procedural rules concerning jurisdiction in proceedings involving magistrates. This clarification not only simplifies decision-making but also consolidates the principle of legality and order within the Italian legal system, emphasizing the importance of following ordinary rules in cases of dismissal. Legal practitioners will necessarily need to consider these guidelines in their future legal practices.